User talk:Nat7315

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Supremme de Luxe‎ does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! --NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 17:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - understood and will do! Mocatriz (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reinas al Rescate (November 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reinas al Rescate and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mocatriz! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laurence Anthony (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JJPMaster was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laurence Anthony and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 01:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laurence Anthony (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Large portion of this submission is unsourced. Additional references in independent and reliable sources are required to demonstrate notability per WP:NPROF or WP:GNG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laurence Anthony and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 07:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laurence Anthony (November 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There are no secondary sources, which is pretty much mandatory for a BLP. Nor are the books proven to be important (by way of reviews), so we can hardly determine notability per WP:PROF.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laurence Anthony and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drmies (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that adding a YouTube link is going to help in any way. You need reliable secondary sources, and you need to look at WP:PROF, as I indicated in my comment. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, many thanks for your feedback. I have tried to take it on board by adding the link to Google Scholar, where the 10,000+ sources citing the person's works are brought together: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DS8jIxUAAAAJ&hl=en

Is there a more efficient way to do this? Alice (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DON'T add that. Add RELIABLE, SECONDARY sources. I don't think you looked at WP:PROF or WP:RS, and what you need is not citations, but publications that actually talk about him. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. I did indeed look at WP:PROF, and was going for Criterion 1:

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline.

Which says:

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. [...] To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.

I thought the Googl scholar link was the most efficient way to do this? Alice (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(because it shows there are a "substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates") Alice (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe, if you can define (properly--not just one's own opinion) what a "substantial" number is and when a rate becomes "significant". Or you can find a couple reviews of the books in JSTOR (which suggest that someone's work was noticed) and add those, which seems to me like a much easier way to go about it, and in addition you may find things that actually talk about the subject. Otherwise, you have a resume cited to webpages, not a biography cited to secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]